340 P.3d 426
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- On March 7, 2012 Detective Paul Barco observed a white Chrysler Concord following a black Nissan SUV in tandem on State Route 80; he found the pattern and other behavior suspicious.
- Barco lost sight of the Nissan, saw it parked with its hood up, and later observed the Concord with what he believed was illegal front-window tint and an object (a rosary) hanging from the rearview mirror.
- He stopped the Concord; a search yielded 172 pounds of marijuana. The Concord’s measured front-window visible light transmission was 36% — within Arizona’s legal tolerance.
- Moreno (a passenger) was arrested and later convicted of multiple drug and weapons offenses; the trial court denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop.
- The trial court concluded the officer made a reasonable, good-faith mistake about the tint (a factual mistake) and that, considering the officer’s experience and the totality of circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on suspected illegal window tint | State: Officer reasonably suspected tint violation based on visual observation and his experience | Moreno: Tint was legal; officer’s assessment was not an objectively reasonable basis to stop | Court: Stop was valid — officer reasonably (though mistakenly) believed tint violated statute; mistake of fact was objectively reasonable |
| 2. Whether the officer’s error was a mistake of law (invalidating the stop) or fact (permissible if reasonable) | State: Even if error, it was a factual misperception of tint darkness | Moreno: Officer misconceived the legal effect and thus made a mistake of law, which cannot support suspicion | Court: Officer made a factual mistake about tint darkness, not a legal misunderstanding; in any event Heien allows reasonable mistakes of law to supply reasonable suspicion |
| 3. Whether an officer must have objective, measurable proof (like a meter or radar) before stopping for tint | State: Visual observations and training/experience can supply reasonable suspicion where pre-stop measurement is infeasible | Moreno: Officer needed more objective proof before stopping (analogized to radar/pacing for speed) | Court: No; objective measurement often not feasible pre-stop, and experienced officer’s visual observation can be sufficient under the totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Teagle v. State, 217 Ariz. 17 (App. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Moran v. State, 232 Ariz. 528 (App. 2013) (deference to trial court on credibility and inferences)
- Sweeney v. State, 224 Ariz. 107 (App. 2010) (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-circumstances review)
- Childress v. State, 222 Ariz. 334 (App. 2009) (appellate upholding if legally correct on any record-supported ground)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable suspicion may rest on an objectively reasonable mistake of law)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment determinations)
- Fornof v. State, 218 Ariz. 74 (App. 2008) (consider officer’s training/experience in totality analysis)
- Livingston v. State, 206 Ariz. 145 (App. 2003) (traffic stops require reasonable grounds; cannot rest on mere speculation)
- Gonzalez-Gutierrez v. State, 187 Ariz. 116 (1996) (particularized suspicion requirement and relevance of agent experience)
- Nevarez v. State, 235 Ariz. 129 (App. 2014) (officer need not determine a violation occurred before stopping for investigation)
- Mariscal v. United States, 285 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasonable suspicion suffices for traffic stops)